turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Third World War (In the Presence of Mine Enemies)
Should we rename this to "Third World War (In the Presence of Mine Enemies)"?. As I recall, there have been references to WW III in some of the Crosstime Traffic books (V-WW especially) which refer to a USSR / US war. That nuclear war is what most people expect WW III to be even if HT called it the Russian-American War in the book. In any case, given "WW II (TWTCE)" perhaps this is needed? ML4E 16:32, June 28, 2012 (UTC) :Oddly enough, I was having the same thought yesterday. I think the answer is "yes". It's not quite the only WW III in the HT canon, which is probably reason enough, but as you say, most people coming across a "Third World War" would almost certainly be expecting a war stemming from the OTL Cold War. TR 16:42, June 28, 2012 (UTC) Canada is Missing Flag It appears that Canada is missing its flag on the war table. What flag would it have during the war. Would it have the current flag or the pre-1965 design with the "Union Jack" to the top left? 15:24, September 13, 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley :We don't know. ML4E can probably speak better to this, but I think there are cogent arguments to be made for either flag given the course of history (which is probably why we didn't include the flag). TR (talk) 16:40, September 13, 2014 (UTC) :I agree that there are arguments either way. There would be the remaining loyalty to the British Empire but any puppet monarchs installed by the Nazis are unlikely to be recognized by Canada. Probably not even if Edward VIII was reinstated. The first would tend towards keeping the Red Ensign while the latter would tend towards a new flag with a maple leaf (which may or may not be the current one given the flag debate of the 1960s OTL). Probably best to leave it blank. ML4E (talk) 16:53, September 13, 2014 (UTC) ::What exactly would be the constitutional provisions for Canada and other Commonwealth monarchies to refuse to recognize a puppet Nazi monarch? By the beginning of WWII it was, I believe, already the case that any changes to the law of succession would have to pass through the parliaments of all the affected countries (unless one or more of those countries instead took the opportunity to reform itself into a republic, as the Irish Free State did during the 1937 abdication crisis) so if Canada did not recognize a puppet, that puppet would not be monarch at all, unless he or she just happened to be the rightful monarch by the antebellum definition anyway. (Perhaps the Nazis would find someone pliable to their wishes and kill everyone ahead of them?) Turtle Fan (talk) 18:07, September 13, 2014 (UTC) :Since Canada didn't have a written constitution at this point aside from the British North America Act of 1867, as amended, there would be some flexibility depending on popular opinion. For Edward, if the populace didn't want him, parliament could resolve that his abdication was not reversible and so he was no longer in the line of succession. I think the key point would be what happened to George VI and his daughters, the future Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret. In OTL George was resolute in remaining in London and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon along with their daughters refused to leave him even to the countryside as children had been dispersed in OTL. However, with a successful German invasion, I think some attempt would have been made to secretly send the daughters out of the country probably to Canada. If either made it then the line of succession remains clear. Otherwise, I'm unsure what would have happened. Your suggestion of republicanism is certainly one possibility along with a more formal Viceroy role for the G-G until succession could be resolved as another. ML4E (talk) 18:28, September 14, 2014 (UTC) ::That strikes me as likely as well. If one of George's daughters lives to reach Canada and reigns from there, with the Allies insisting she's the legitimate queen-in-exile, it would be a huge embarrassment to the BUF and whoever they installed in Buckingham Palace. ::Not sure if this affects anything, but I'm once again trying to figure out who the Nazis' royal cat's-paw might be. Taking a quick look at the Royal Family tree: In the event that Elizabeth and Margaret are lost, the next in line is Prince Henry. If he'd come to the throne it would have been as Henry IX. He was born in 1900 so it's highly unlikely he was the Henry IX who reigned in 2003. And since that Henry was IX not X, we can surely rule out this Henry ever having been king on the Nazis' behalf--even if we overlook the fact that he served in the war as a staff officer and as second-in-command of an armored brigade, and was wounded in an aerial assault--an unlikely choice to serve his country's occupiers. ::I don't recall exactly when the timeline was changed in the Axis's favor in ItPoME (it was before Pearl Harbor I know) but Henry's oldest son William was born on December 18, 1941. If you butterfly him out of existence that leaves you with the Duke of Kent having the strongest claim to the throne. He also served in the war and was in fact killed while on active duty--in an accident, not in combat, but still; he was no crypto-fascist. (He was bisexual to boot, another trait you rarely find in a Nazi collaborator's biography.) His death occurred in 1942 so it could be butterflied out, or replaced with another wartime death. His older son and daughter were born in 1935 and 1936, respectively, so they must be considered, and his younger son (who would jump ahead of his daughter) was born in 1942, after the latest possible POD. :::I seem to recall the US remained neutral so Britain was invaded and Germany finally won WW II by not having a two front war against the USSR. Maybe Hitler didn't declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor leaving FDR stuck. ML4E (talk) 22:46, September 15, 2014 (UTC) ::::The story and the novel make it clear that the US didn't go to war with anyone in the 1940s, so no Pearl Harbor. TR (talk) 03:00, September 16, 2014 (UTC) :::::The POD then is somewhere in the eighteen-month window between the Battle of France (because Germany can't invade Britain as long as France is still in the fight, surely) and Pearl Harbor. Well the POD might come before the Battle of France and have delayed effects, like how Heydrich surviving in MwIH didn't affect anything much till after VE Day; but if that's the case, we can surely assume that conditions such as these remain the same till the major changes start happening. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:41, September 16, 2014 (UTC) ::Eliminate the Duke and his children and you have the Countess of Harewood, who at best was seventh in line when the Germans landed. She's the first adult in the line of succession whom I could conceive of as having any crypto-fascist sympathies, and that only because Edward VIII was her favorite brother. Edward tried to talk their father out of forcing her into a loveless arranged marriage with a much older man, and won her undying gratitude and loyalty. If Edward were indeed willing to play ball with Hitler and Mosley but Mosley couldn't get his abdication reversed, he might have some influence with his sister. I don't know enough about her own politics to say how open she'd be to Edward's persuasion on that score. ::As I said, she's seventh in line of all living, non-abdicated members of the Royal Family as of September 1, 1939--after Elizabeth, Margaret, Henry, George, Edward, and Alexandra--and gets bumped down to eighth if Henry's son William is born on December 18, 1941. However, if Elizabeth and Margaret flee Britain and fail to reach Canada or another Allied or neutral destination, and if Henry and George are killed in the invasion, the only people left ahead of her are young children. As their closest living adult relative on the royal side of the family, she'd be an obvious choice for a regency. And that opens up an intriguing possibility indeed. ::If the BUF MPs were to pass a bill that changed the law of succession so that it was determined entirely by birth order, and not by gender (in other words, older sisters' claims would no longer be trumped by younger brothers'--the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, moved up in time by six or seven decades), and backdate it accordingly, the regent could give royal assent and immediately become Queen Mary III (though Canada could argue that it was not bound to recognize her). Not often that you consider the possibility of a fascist one-party state leading the move toward gender equality in politics. ::The same could happen if Edward were restored and wanted to ensure that, in the event he died childless, his pliable sister would succeed him rather than one of his Hitler-hating brothers (not that there'd be much likelihood of that anyway, if they were intractable in their opposition to the occupation). Of course the BUF could try the same thing if Edward stayed abdicated and Henry or George were still alive, but then obtaining royal assent would involve asking an adult king to disqualify himself--highly unlikely. If the Nazis can't get Edward back on the throne (or if he refuses to play their game, which I still maintain is a possibility) they would have to kill Henry and George, at a minimum. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:49, September 15, 2014 (UTC) ::As for the possibility of the Governor-General acting in his own right till Canada could decide whom to recognize as monarch: That's an intriguing thought indeed. Of course it works only until, at latest, the incumbent at the time the monarchy passes out of Allied hands dies and forces the issue. The G-G in question is almost certainly Alexander Cambridge, who died in 1957, close to the start of WWIII (close enough that the crisis his death forced might have helped precipitate the conflict?) That assumes of course that he doesn't die early by an SS assassination or something (maybe Otto Skorzeny does him in, or tries to). He was a great-grandson of George III and a second cousin twice removed of Edward VIII, George VI, and their siblings, so while his claim to royal blood is weak it's not non-existent. Think there's any possibility that eventually the Canadian Parliament would declare him king and have done with it? Turtle Fan (talk) 04:06, September 15, 2014 (UTC) :::I figured Cambridge as the G-G. I hadn't considered successors because I hadn't looked up his DoD. Parliament might declare him king or it might continue to appoint G-Gs as a place holder. Off hand I can't think of a historical precedent but the Steward (not Stuart) rulers of Gondor in LotR as a fictional example comes to mind. ML4E (talk) 22:46, September 15, 2014 (UTC) ::::Doesn't the appointment of a G-G require the monarch's approval? ::::If Cambridge is made king, his death in 1957 would put his daughter May on the throne. But she was a British citizen and might be prevented from taking the throne by the Nazis and their collaborators if she remains in occupied territory. Hmm, lot of bits and pieces to this speculation. ::::By the way, I'm not certain how closely this applies as a historical precedent for what you're talking about--the legislature of a constitutional monarchy appointing viceroys without the absent monarch's approval--but I'm reminded of the German-backed ouster of Miklos Horthy in favor of Ferenc Szalasi in Hungary (still technically a monarchy) in the final year of WWII. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:41, September 16, 2014 (UTC) Well I went and added the Dominion flag without first reading all this. In any case, I think we keep it. ML4E (talk) 17:48, February 27, 2016 (UTC) Questionable passage "When the United States was either unable to pay this tribute or was late doing so, the Wehrmacht used terror tactics like destroying a city or plundering the countryside to speed up the process. The Americans nonetheless did their best to hide the resources they had from the German government." I don't remember any part of the book which said this, though it may have been a single line that didn't register with me. Is this left from that guy who insisted that MLK had a large role in the Presence timeline? Can anyone confirm or deny?JonathanMarkoff (talk) 05:08, November 20, 2017 (UTC) :It comes from a couple of different references throughout. First page of both the story and novel, Gimpel reflects that the US would cough up what it owed, or the panzer divisions would roll. On the other hand, there are several instances where Gimpel and Dorsch and Buckliger discuss the US and threat the fact taht the Americans are lying about not coughing up their tribute as an open secret. The language could probably be changed, but it's legit. TR (talk) 06:11, November 20, 2017 (UTC)